[CRESCENDOPOWER]

Quote:

Originally posted by kelly Crescendo Terminology is a HUGE obstacle for me in audio. Let me see if I can describe "thin" the way I hear it and you can post your definition. Someone should publish a good audio dictionary some day. Thin - Lacking in bass punch, authority, body, resonance, substance and intensity; synonyms: sparse, light, tinny; antonyms: full, rich, lush The way the HD600 sounds when plugged directly into the headphone out of a modern low voltage portable CD player exemplifies my definition of thinness.

Yep! I agree with the wording. But, if you, and I were to sit down, and listen to the HD-600s on numerous systems would we always agree with what we heard? I don't know?
Unlike some of the others, I believe that people do hear somewhat similar. Not exactly, but somewhat similiar. I just think people have different tastes in what sound they like.
Also, it is very easy for someone to say that their equipment is better than yours, or vice versa, but anyone who has heard a wide varity of audio equipment over the years knows that these components are much more reserved than we would like to admit. I know of nothing that I have heard in audio that is perfect, that's for sure.

 

[domer2004]

The HD 600 just LOOKS (I know this is invalid criterion) weak. I could see it sounding great with jazz or classical, but can it handle metal? I realize that I did not include that in my original laundry list of musical tastes, but I do enjoy some old school metallica from time to time. That is another reason I wanted to with solid state amplification. I have never used/heard a tube amp, but I have *heard* that they do not offer the same type of speed that a SS amp is capable of producing. My formed stereotypes for the SS amps: harsh, cold, fast. Tube amps: warm (whatever the hell that means--see kelly's problems with a consistent lexicon of terminology), excellent mids, thick bass possibly but no punch. Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems like a SS amp is the best thing to go with if you have only one amp, and your musical preferences are eclectic. One thing I do not buy, though, is that crap about certain headphones being better for one thing over another and still being great headphones. If a set of headphones were truly great, they should be able to appropriately recreate all types of music. Well, I won't rant about that right now...untill somebody jumps on me for it (i expect it

).

Brett

 

[Blighty]

Quote:

Originally posted by domer2004 The HD 600 just LOOKS (I know this is invalid criterion) weak. I could see it sounding great with jazz or classical, but can it handle metal?

Yes, it will handle metal but I think it will put you to sleep

Quote:

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems like a SS amp is the best thing to go with if you have only one amp, and your musical preferences are eclectic.

High quality SS amps have a silky smooth and very dynamic sound without the lushness or warmth some people prefer in tube amplification.

Quote:

One thing I do not buy, though, is that crap about certain headphones being better for one thing over another and still being great headphones. If a set of headphones were truly great, they should be able to appropriately recreate all types of music.

The emphasis is on if a set of headphones were truly great.... I know of no great set of headphones that can leave all others in the dust in every piece of music. However, this does not mean that a headphone cannot reproduce all types of music well. Not even high-end loudspeakers will "recreate" a live concert. Much of headphone design is about making compromises and those compromises always lead to sonic differences between different brands/models which make some better for certain types of music and not others. It is also why most enthusiasts on head-fi have more than a single headphone. I seriously doubt even the Sony R10 is perfect in this regard although it may come closer than most dynamic headphones.

 

[kelly]

Crescendo
I agree that most people hear somewhat similarly and that on audio forums we tend to exaggerate the subjectivity of an experience. In my listening with others, I have found that almost always the same qualities I hear in one piece of equipment, other people do also. What we find that differs in preference is our willingness to tolerate certain flaws and our prioritization for certain strengths that we look for. Ultimately, we all tend to want similar things when we can have our cake and eat it too. The limiting factor that causes us to divide and choose one thing over another tends to be money even more often than technology and practicality.

(To answer Blighty...)
This is why I think people sometimes people say "good for this sort of music but not this other sort"). The right piece of music will show off a strength or weakness in a piece of equipment, but you might, for example, not care so much about the taughtness of bass if you primarily listen to classical. It's not that the flaw vanishesses, it's simply that people tend to prioritize the upper mids and high frequency extension over the quality of bass in classical because of the prevalence of horn and string instruments. Likewise, if you listen primarily to pop and rock, you may prioritize the attack of the symbols, a solid bass and a smoothness to help out what is often thought by some of us to be overly bright and poorly recorded music. Apply your own examples here -- my argument is only that we tend to prioritize differently based on what we listen to, not that a flaw is "good" for any kind of music.

(To answer domer...)
The generalizations mentioned about tube and solid state equipment are common enough to make the generalizations exist but please keep in mind that they are still generalizations. There are certainly exceptions even in low end products and as you move up to more expensive products the generalization seem to disappear altogether. I've heard solid state equipment that I thought was overly smooth, tube equipment I found overly bright, etc. I've also found solid states with sweet midrange (the McCormack, for instance) and tube equipment that is very fast an punchy (the EAR HP4, for example). I still think you miss out on a lot if you allow preconceived generalizations about a technology to dominate your decisions.

But... I do agree that the HD600 is not a beauty contest winner. Whoever decided that countertop headband was attractive should be sent back to art school. It's not the ugliest headphone though and at least it doesn't draw a lot of attention to itself.

 

[MacDEF]

Quote:

Originally posted by CRESCENDOPOWER Mabye my definition of thin, and analytical is different than yours? Once again, to quote Vertigo_1, Different strokes for different folks!

I think that's at least part of it. Different people have different preferences. For example, Tomcat's favorite headphones are the DT 770, which most reviews have characterized as being dark, and even thick. So when Tomcat said that the HD 600 sound thin to him, that made sense. Vert, on the other hand, places extremely detailed treble at the top of the list of his headphone priorities, so if he calls the HD 600 lacking in detail, that makes sense to me, too. I think that with the right amp and cable, the HD 600 have great treble and detail, so a headphone like the CD 3000 with a solid state amp would seem excessively bright to me, while to some it might seem just right.

This is an area where I think it's very helpful to get a general feel for members' individual preferences. If you find that you have similar "ears" to someone, you can usually take their reviews at face value; but even if you disagree with someone's general tastes, knowing how your tastes differ can still make their reviews quite useful.

 

[MacDEF]

Quote:

Originally posted by domer2004 One thing I do not buy, though, is that crap about certain headphones being better for one thing over another and still being great headphones. If a set of headphones were truly great, they should be able to appropriately recreate all types of music.

In a perfect world, where there is a perfect set of headphones that perfectly reproduces every frequency and nuance of the perfect audio signal being fed into them, your statement would make sense.

Unfortunately, there is no perfect headphone. Every headphone has flaws, whether it be in the highs, the mids, the bass, soundstaging, "detail," control, etc. Different types of music emphasize different things (highs, mids, bass, soundstage, detail, control, etc.). So it's quite logical that different headphones would be better for different types of music.

For example, if you primarily listen to vocals, you don't want headphones that have great treble and bass but weak midrange performance. Likewise, if you listen to organ concertos, you may be willing to sacrifice a bit of upper treble if it means getting the best possible low bass.

 

[r3cc0s]

in a perfect world

we'd have optical plugs
and we could decode digital signals with our brain

who needs a dac
just raw data

oh well

anyways to put in my 2 cents
the best I dunno

I can say I really liked the 600's with melo's

and the 600 can be paired with tons of amps to make it sound the way you want it to

the akg 501 is nice, if it had a better bass respocne

omega 2 is nice and fast, and detailed

r10 i'd love to give a listen with a good amp
and same goes with hp 1000's and etc..

oh well
its too personal
just like what's the worlds best car

 

[domer2004]

In a perfect world, wouldn't EVERY headphone be perfect by definition MacBeth.....er, I mean MacDef?

Even in a not-so-perfect world, I think that the nomenclature "good headphones" be applied to those headphones that reproduce everything accurately. In regards to an earlier reply that an individual made claiming that he would rather have an enjoyable listening experience than an accurate one, I agree that it is more enjoyable to have things tweaked to our own quirky preferences. However, a GOOD, albeit, GREAT headphone, IMO, delivers total fidelity. I would rather know that I will be able to hear EXACTLY what the producer intended, whether good or bad, and know that I can equalize it to my own personal taste than to be working with a constant bias in my own equipment that I have to account for with equalization. That way, in the rare (and I do mean rare) event that a producer actually hits the bullseye I can bypass every signal altering device and enjoy sheer bliss (see Roger Waters' "Amused To Death"). Again, that is my OPINION so tell me what you think (as if you wouldn't anyway

).

Also, can anyone tell me their thoughts on the Earmax Pro? How does it mesh with the HD 600?

Brett

 

[Audio-Me]

the ones that let you forget you're listening with headphones, and just get lost in the music.

 

[a1leyez0nm3]

the best headphones are the ones that you enjoy your music the most, or as Audio&Me said, the ones you get lost in the music. speaking of Shakespeare, Hamlet tells that the world has no right or wrong, just opinions..... music is a matter of tastes... so then if how you listen to it is a matter of opions right?>? giving and taking the lifelikeness of the audio and yadadadada im rambling now...

 

[MacDEF]

Quote:

Originally posted by domer2004 In a perfect world, wouldn't EVERY headphone be perfect by definition

Good point

Quote:

Even in a not-so-perfect world, I think that the nomenclature "good headphones" be applied to those headphones that reproduce everything accurately.

But, again, there are NO headphones that do that. So we're back to what several of us said above: since different headphones have different flaws, they therefore have different strengths.

Hey, I agree with you in theory... unfortunately reality doesn't agree with us

 

[Matt]

Quote:

Originally posted by kelly 1) It homogenizes the sound. Every string instrument may sound "more woody" to you, but they all begin to sound too similar to one another. In an orchestra it becomes more difficult to distinguish one instrument from another. 2) On good recordings, the added coloration is not welcomed ever. Take a Chesky recording in which the venue is a wooden church and suddenly the advantage of the venue is removed. Yes, I can see how someone would prefer the wooden coloration with processed studio recordings but even then your goals and the engineers have vastly diverged.

These, in my experience, are simply untrue. Knowing the highly regarded nature (both by myself and others) of "uncolored" Ety 4S's, I had the pleasure of being able to directly compare Ety 4S's and the W100's (yes, in the same room, at the same time, on the same rig) and the conclusion I came to, amongst others, was this: the W100's posessed no substantial "woody" coloration in direct comparison with Etys.

The only difference was a very slight "cupped" feel, kinda like when you cup your hands a few inches away from the sides of an open can, but divided by five or ten. Other than that, they were just close all 'round. Really, the only "big" difference in sound I could notice had nothing to do with the matter at hand (Etys more transparent, smoother, more detailed, better low level linearity...all of these as a whole not constituting more than maybe a 6% advantage over the W100's).

Moreover, the idea that the W100's had a homogenaity of instrumental tone never came up once. Again, they are similar and I feel the "Ety in a full-sized can" designation that they'd previously been tentatively given is, to a large, large degree, justified (only being thrashed to bloody, pulpy death by Stax's).

They were very close in nearly every regard, one of those being coloration(s), in my experience. To me, zat says some-sing.

- Sir Mister Matt

P.S. Awright, whudda I git fer havin' 500 posts?

 

[kelly]

Matt

I admit using the phrase "wooden coloration" was a bit meaningless and facetious. What I could have said instead might have been "deep resonant coloration." The rest of my comments about the W100 stand.

What I can't do with you is argue using percentages. It reminds me of the days that Sega would advertise their game systems has been "six times more powerful!" than other systems--it simply held no meaning at all. I cannot imagine how you calculated "6% better."

Anyway, the conclusion here is that Matt thinks the W100 is great despite the fact that he sold his after two weeks. Kelly thinks the W100 is for people who don't really care to hear as much of their source and amplifiers as the Stax, Etymotic and the Sennheiser HD600 will hit you with.

I'd suggest people to audition for themselves but since the W100 is available import only at $300 or so, it's difficult to audition without putting money on the line. With both the Etymotic and HD600 coming in cheaper, I might actually suggest skipping the audition this time around but every W100 owner would obviously disagree with me.

 

[Tomcat]

500 posts? Matt:

Congrats!

(Sorry, kelly, I couldn't resist.

)
Quote:

Kelly thinks the W100 is for people who don't really care to hear as much of their source and amplifiers as the Stax, Etymotic and the Sennheiser HD600 will hit you with.

kelly, that is just my point. Is it really helpful to listen for what your source and amp might be doing? Isn't it far more important to listen for the music? I honestly believe that there is a difference between those two approaches and that our listening styles are indeed different. I don't care "how much" of the equipment I hear, I am interested in how easy it is to listen to the music, and how satisfying. And frankly, I am not sure that I want to be "hit" with anything while I listen to music. I am not that kind of audiophile.

 

[kelly]

Tomcat

I think we're in agreement here. Transparency is not a value everyone seeks in every component. To be sure, if you've found happiness in pairing the W100 with an inexpensive source and amp then your sum total of expenses was lower than someone else who had to buy an expensive source and amp to pair with a more transparent headphone. If you've achieved equal satisfaction having spent less money, you've beat the system regardless of your means. And yes, I agree that our philosophies of reaching that happiness are somewhat different. Too little is spoken of "approach" when we review things.